ok, i see. Making unreasoned assertions, and be willfullingly ignorant. Thats also a way to ignore God.

Saying we don’t know when we don’t know is called being honest. I can no more ignore God than I can ignore the invisible man.

there is no creationist science. There is just the interpretation of science which leads to creationism as the best answer of given phenomena discovered through science.

I will paraphrase you in reply: ok i see, Making unreasoned assertions, and being willfully ignorant. That’s also the way to avoid the fact you don’t know.

peer reviewed scientific facts should leave the philosophic implications open to anyone that wants to draw own conclusions, either to creationism, or to naturalism.

Yes, as long as those interpretations don’t depend on misrepresenting scientific facts. And even then they are far from the certainty you proclaim. They often lead to further experimental models which are then rigorously tested in an attempt to disprove them. Just what does ‘God dunnit’ explain anyway? What created God?

Dr. Werner Gitt and In the Beginning was Information

Understanding that information theory has a relationship to genetics and evolution, creationists have used the language of information theory in an attempt to discredit evolution. Dr. Werner Gitt published a monograph In the Beginning was Information[11] that creationists invariably refer to when arguing about information theory and evolution. Gitt’s book is problematic in its structure and in its assertions about information theory.

Gitt separates the scientific version of information from other types. He singles out Shannon information as “statistical” and then partitions information into syntax, semantic (or “meaningful”) information, pragmatic information, and apobetics. In doing so, he makes a number of claims about how genetics works. The text develops a number of statements which Gitt numbers as “theorems”, as if the text were a mathematics textbook, and claims “[this] series of theorems which should also be regarded as laws of nature, although they are not of a physical or a chemical nature.”

This form of argument is problematic on multiple accounts. First, theorems are usually mathematical statements based on postulates and definitions and take the form of propositional logic to prove such statements. Gitt does not state his assumptions and leaves many terms undefined. More problematically, the theorems themselves are not mathematical statements; his theorems are actually assertions. (His binning of Shannon information as statistical and the “lowest level” of information indicates Gitt’s disdain for mathematics.) Second, theorems are the result of deductive logic, while scientific laws are the result of inductive logic based on observation. The two cannot be equated. Gitt does not refer to any observation in the development of his theorems, and hence, by definition they are not laws.[12] It is unclear how to make statements about the natural world without any observation to support it. Third, as will be described below, it is an untestable model and hence cannot be deemed valid or invalid.

In essence, Gitt uses the language of mathematics and science, but does not perform a mathematical proof or employ the scientific method. Instead, he makes a number of assertions that cannot be validated, and Gitt’s text is a poorly constructed rhetorical argument, not a scientific one.

Atheism does not explain anything nor does it need to. That’s not it’s purpose. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god or all-powerful supernatural force. I would argue that you are, in fact, an atheist with regard to Zeus, Thor and every other god that has ever been thought of other than the god which you believe in now. Is that not true?

Science brings evidence to light which helps explain our natural world and why it is the way it is. It begins with observation and data collection leading to a testable hypothesis ultimately leading to experimentation and the development of a theory which can be further tested by any one and either supported or refuted. If new evidence is found the theory can be modified to fit the new evidence. If after many iterations of testing the theory is supported over and over, the theory can become a law (think gravity; if you drop a ball from the top of a building on Earth it WILL fall to the ground each and every time. Even prayer will not change this fact. The theory of gravity is, therefore, proven to be a law). It does all this through a proven methodology involving observation, testing, verification and repeatability.

Faith, on the other hand, is the exact opposite of science. It begins with a belief, a premise and looks for evidence to support that premise. The belief is taken as true no matter what so even if evidence is offered which refutes the belief then it is rejected as incorrect or misinterpreted because the initial belief must be true. This flies in the face of what science does and what critical thinking is all about.

There is likely nothing anyone could say on this or any other forum that would change your very closed mind, Lindoia, because you will simply refute all evidence which challenges your belief. So, ultimately, until you decide to step out of your comfort zone and question, to yourself, your own beliefs and what you’ve been taught and told by others, you will continue to live in the darkness.

that depends on what atheism you refere to. If you refere to strong atheism, it makes a claim, namely that God most probably does not exist. to make that claim, you need to back it up with evidence.

Science brings evidence to light which helps explain our natural world and why it is the way it is.

But it cannot explain the origin and cause of our universe, and life.

It begins with observation and data collection leading to a testable hypothesis ultimately leading to experimentation and the development of a theory which can be further tested by any one and either supported or refuted.

That applies only to operational science, not to historical science.

Faith, on the other hand

There is no either science or faith. they are not the oposit.

, is the exact opposite of science. It begins with a belief

Not necessarly. Faith can be the result of scientific inquiry and deduction. The ultimate truth about reality cannot be proven, but is always a matter of faith. Intelligent design namely does first examine the scientific evidence, and based on that it deduces that intelligent design is the best explanation.

There is likely nothing anyone could say on this or any other forum that would change your very closed mind

Thats sure, since i made up already my concept. How about you ?

, Lindoia, because you will simply refute all evidence which challenges your belief.

What will make you leave atheism ?

So, ultimately, until you decide to step out of your comfort zone and question, to yourself, your own beliefs and what you’ve been taught and told by others, you will continue to live in the darkness.

I arrived at the conclusion of atheism via my belief in God and Christianity as taught to me by my parents and the churches I attended until I was in my late teens. It was then that I began to question what I had been taught. Only recently really have I come to the conclusion that all of it is “unconvincing and bollocks.”

However, I am completely open to evidence that points to, not only an “Intelligent Designer”, but to the God of Christianity, for if it happened to be anything else, then your belief and everything that I was taught would still be wrong, would it not? If ever was presented such compelling evidence I would indeed rethink my position. Would you?

I am, however very doubtful that such evidence will ever be presented. Perhaps God could heal some amputees or move a mountain as he states is possible in the Bible? But, alas, I am fairly confident that no such “miracles” shall come to pass.

I arrived at the conclusion of atheism via my belief in God and Christianity as taught to me by my parents and the churches I attended until I was in my late teens. It was then that I began to question what I had been taught. Only recently really have I come to the conclusion that all of it is “unconvincing and bollocks.”

However, I am completely open to evidence that points to, not only an “Intelligent Designer”, but to the God of Christianity, for if it happened to be anything else, then your belief and everything that I was taught would still be wrong, would it not? If ever was presented such compelling evidence I would indeed rethink my position. Would you?

I am, however very doubtful that such evidence will ever be presented. Perhaps God could heal some amputees or move a mountain as he states is possible in the Bible? But, alas, I am fairly confident that no such “miracles” shall come to pass.

Peace to you, Lindoia.

So you have two alternatives left. Either the universe arose from absolutely nothing, or it existed eternally, without beginning, in one form or the other. Any evidence that backs up one of both scenarios ?

So you have two alternatives left. Either the universe arose from absolutely nothing, or it existed eternally, without beginning, in one form or the other. Any evidence that backs up one of both scenarios ?

You ask this (these) question(s) as if your ability to ask proves your God exists. It does not. As for the actual origins of the universe science does not pretend to definitively answer that question as does religion. Science uncovers evidence which suggests possibilities (cosmic background radiation for instance), none of which require God or an “Intelligent Designer.”

But, instead of looking at specific claims, asking unanswerable questions and what not, let us step back a bit…. If we look at the whole of scientific knowledge and understanding throughout history and we place that side-by-side- with the whole of theistic thinking (all the gods, all the dogmas, all the writings, all the sacrifices human or otherwise, etc.) throughout history what do we see when we compare them? I see that science has steadily whittled away our ignorance and increased our understanding of our universe while religion has kept us ignorant by claiming to have all of the answers. Science seeks truth while religion dictates it. Science has proven religious thinking regarding our natural world to be incorrect (Galileo, processes of disease, plague, mental illness, etc.), where as I am aware of no example in the other direction, where religious thinking has proven a finding of science to be incorrect. Can you provide such an example? I would be interested to consider it.

I have to wonder why you came to this and any other atheist forum, Lindoia. I would gather from your responses and confrontational and dismissive questioning that it was not to explore alternative points of view. Is it to practice arguing in favor of your beliefs and against the naysayers, hammering out your armor as it were? Is it to prop up your ego concerning your beliefs? I wonder.

May science cannot answer the questions i made, but you can reason and think about it.

and what not, let us step back a bit…. If we look at the whole of scientific knowledge and understanding throughout history and we place that side-by-side- with the whole of theistic thinking (all the gods, all the dogmas, all the writings, all the sacrifices human or otherwise, etc.) throughout history what do we see when we compare them?

Why should we compare science against religion ? they are not exclusive each against the other.

Naturalism x theism is.

I see that science has steadily whittled away our ignorance

i wold say rather the oposit is the case. The deeper we go in science, the more complexity and mistery is revealed. Scientific inquiry has not brought us more close to naturalism, rather the oposit is the case.

and increased our understanding of our universe while religion has kept us ignorant by claiming to have all of the answers.

REligion is not here to give us all the answers. Atheism and naturalism leads us to the ultimate answer : ” we don’t know “.
It must do so, to ignore Gods fingerprint. I don’t know why that should be a good answer at all.

Science seeks truth while religion dictates it.

Religion does not dictate anything. The bible just presents us a world view, which you are free to believe, or not. God is not a dictator, which obliges us to believe in him.

Please do not mix up things. Religion is one thing. The revelation of the bible is another one.
Science actually confirms what the bible says ( beginning of the universe, life comes only from life etc . )

where as I am aware of no example in the other direction

i have plenty that i can present you, you may just not be aware of all the evidence we have : just have a look at this thread of my personal virtual library :

I have to wonder why you came to this and any other atheist forum, Lindoia. I would gather from your responses and confrontational and dismissive questioning that it was not to explore alternative points of view. Is it to practice arguing in favor of your beliefs and against the naysayers, hammering out your armor as it were? Is it to prop up your ego concerning your beliefs? I wonder.

My ego is irrelevant. What is relevant, is your life, and your soul, how you will spend this life, and where you will spend eternity. I hope it will be in heaven. Life without God is senseless, hopeless, missing the goal. I am here to testyfy the God i believe in, which is the most important i have found in my life.

I admit that I did not read through and watch every video there, but I did bookmark it and I will give it fair treatment. Just from skimming it and looking at the main points I’m sure that I’ve heard most of it before. What strikes me is that all of that “scholarly” content boils down to, “If it’s anything we don’t completely understand then God did it!” That’s not proof or even evidence, it’s just an opinion. Most of the arguments seem to use the same methods you employ in your responses, being that the ability to question a premise automatically makes the premise null and void. And I’m pretty sure that I would be able to point out specific “facts” presented as the basis of the argument that are just plain scientifically wrong which renders the argument itself invalid.

And I see from your last statement that your purpose is to witness… you are a good Christian. You really are wasting your time in places such as this. I believe you will find most godless souls here and in other atheist forums rather well adjusted, happy and comfortable in their lack of belief.

edit - removed some words and phrases that I thought to be somewhat personally condescending towards you, which is not my intent.

I admit that I did not read through and watch every video there, but I did bookmark it and I will give it fair treatment. Just from skimming it and looking at the main points I’m sure that I’ve heard most of it before. What strikes me is that all of that “scholarly” content boils down to, “If it’s anything we don’t completely understand then God did it!”

thats the old tired god of the gaps argument. Of course thats not the poing.
Because the universe had a beginning, it has a cause. Because its finely tuned to life, it needs a fine tuner. Because life comes only from life, because of homochirality, because complex , specified , codified information comes only from a mind, and dna has such information stored, dna information comes from a mind. Because there is a moral code inside of each human, there is a perfect moral giver.

So , no god of the gaps argument at all. sorry…...

That’s not proof or even evidence, it’s just an opinion.

nobody has proofs of the ultimate reality.

“facts” presented as the basis of the argument that are just plain scientifically wrong which renders the argument itself invalid.

wrong again. The universe has most probably a beginning. that is main stream science.
the universe is finely tuned. Even atheists like dawkins, stenger, et al do admit this fact.
DNA contains codified information, that is a undisputed fact….

Alright, Lindoia. We both know this conversation will go nowhere. Neither of us has the ability to change the other’s views, at least not at this time. Perhaps some day. I lack the patience to continue. Forgive me for intruding into your thread. Perhaps another more patient that I will come along and give it a go For now, I diminish.

I think you’re being stupid on purpose. Or…maybe you’re being stupid by accident…probably of birth…into a muslim family.

The point being made here is a simple one…do you think you can try again at answering the questions you have quoted…but this time try and think what the questioner is really trying to get at…at least hypothetically speaking if plain logical consistency doesn’t appeal to you?

Please don’t expect to get into a long debate with me if you insist on being so obtuse, I have special aversion to liars and ignorami.

If you’re going to post on this forum, at least try to be honest here amongst atheists, we are quite good at spotting riligulous liars…

The question about proofs is senseless. Neither is it my goal to present proofs.

That would be because there is no evidence supporting theism.

Lindoia - 30 April 2012 11:27 AM

Why should only science be able to provide compelling answers ?

Because science tells us everything we currently know about our universe and it allows us to falsify claims, like those of theism.

Lindoia - 30 April 2012 11:27 AM

i am not asking you for negative answers, but about positive ones for naturalism.

Go to a university and read some books on science. Plenty of stuff there. Go an talk to engineers about their work in developing products that you use from day to day. All of these are developed using theories based on the laws of this universe that support naturalism. How many things in this world have been built using the laws of theism? None.

Lindoia - 30 April 2012 11:27 AM

May science cannot answer the questions i made, but you can reason and think about it.

Just because science cannot answer some questions does not mean that the ones it has answered are incorrect.

Lindoia - 30 April 2012 11:27 AM

i wold say rather the oposit is the case. The deeper we go in science, the more complexity and mistery is revealed. Scientific inquiry has not brought us more close to naturalism, rather the oposit is the case.

Wow. You need to read some books. The rest of humanity has a good understanding of the universe. We have developed tools to enable us to live comfortably in an uncomfortable environment and many of us live lives that are rich and fulfilling because of this.

Lindoia - 30 April 2012 11:27 AM

REligion is not here to give us all the answers. Atheism and naturalism leads us to the ultimate answer : ” we don’t know “.
It must do so, to ignore Gods fingerprint. I don’t know why that should be a good answer at all.

Religion claims to have all the answers. Have you read the bible? Genesis claims to be the story of creation. It’s plainly wrong, and don’t even start on ‘interpretation’. As for god’s fingerprint - it doesn’t exist. There’s no evidence for theism. Zero.

Lindoia - 30 April 2012 11:27 AM

Religion does not dictate anything. The bible just presents us a world view, which you are free to believe, or not. God is not a dictator, which obliges us to believe in him.

The bible is filled with direct and veiled threats. The god of the bible is a dictator to say the least. He is a warmonger, an racial murdered and threatens to harm us after we die if we don’t succumb to his will.

Lindoia - 30 April 2012 11:27 AM

Please do not mix up things. Religion is one thing. The revelation of the bible is another one.
Science actually confirms what the bible says ( beginning of the universe, life comes only from life etc . )

What bible are you reading? Yikes…

Lindoia - 30 April 2012 11:27 AM

i have plenty that i can present you, you may just not be aware of all the evidence we have : just have a look at this thread of my personal virtual library :

Let’s examine them:
1. The universe had most probably a beginning.
We don’t know this to be true.
2. The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet.
There are thousands of planets like ours in the universe. The fine tuned argument actually fails because of its own claim. If its laws are so finely balanced that one adjustment one way or the other can result in nothing happening, then how is it an example of an omnipotent all knowing god? If anything it’s evidence for an evolved universe, in the same way that our DNA with adjustments to chromosomes one way or the other would result in a failure to replicate a living organism.
4. The moral argument, and value of life.
Morals are a product of genetics and science. Religion has nothing to do with it.
5. Without God, life has no reason to be, there is no ultimate goal
Who says there has to be a goal?
6. Religious experiences and miracles.
Delusion and hallucinations. I can have the same experience with drugs and no god.

Beyond all of those weak arguments - you can’t prove the existence of something by writing a book. You need evidence and theism has none.

Lindoia - 30 April 2012 11:27 AM

My ego is irrelevant. What is relevant, is your life, and your soul, how you will spend this life, and where you will spend eternity. I hope it will be in heaven. Life without God is senseless, hopeless, missing the goal. I am here to testyfy the God i believe in, which is the most important i have found in my life.

There is no evidence to support the existence of a ‘soul’. There’s also no evidence for the afterlife. Sam Harris has spoken repeatedly about the effects that damage to the brain has on its functions. All we know about the brain tells us that when we die our ‘consciousness’ dies with us.
Science tells us that life is meaningless, however that fact does not mean that we cannot create our own meaning for life (which you have done with religion). Atheists choose to focus on the positive aspects of our existence to create meaning in our lives. Religion uses threats, dogma and lies to control people. There’s a hell of a difference.